Daily chart

Demography is density

WHEN population density is measured by standard methods (according to which population is divided by land area) small countries and territories such as Macau, Monaco and Singapore rank among the world’s most crowded. However, given that mostly uninhabitable deserts cover more than 95% of Egypt and mudslide-prone mountains a quarter of Hong Kong, it is not surprising that the built-up urban areas in these places feel much more crowded than conventional comparisons suggest. So an alternative method of calculating population density is to divide the urban population by the area taken up by cities. On this measure Bangladesh’s urban areas hold about 75,000 people per square kilometre (194,250 per square mile). This is likely the world’s highest and is over 70 times the figure derived from cruder calculations. Since more than half the world’s population now lives in cities, a share the UN expects to rise to over two-thirds by 2050, adjusting population density to account for the smaller areas where people actually choose to live is probably a better way of gauging how crowded somewhere is.

"Most Monacans actually live in France"
`
I think the term is Monegasque.
`
I suspect the number of true, longtime natives is actually pretty low (like a fift of the 36,000 or so residents listed, maybe?). And the surrounding areas are not so bad either. And lets face it, Monaco has basically been a protectorate of France and oddity of history.
`
Monaco is a little bigger than townhall, having traced the grand prix event to the best of my abilities with a rented car. But still something like a couple of square miles in area.
`
As for Singapore, I have visited the place and it seemed to enjoy pretty good standard of living. Friends of mine say that the biggest drawback may be boredom after six months of living there....

A "good" standard of living is one at which one can have enough to eat and drink, keep warm and live in sanitary conditions. My experience of working in Africa and recent reports from that continent lead me to think that having too many children worsens the problem. The rise in youth unemployment in almost every country indicates that the more technology advances the less work will be available to the young. I am likely to stop breathing before too many more years have elapsed but when I do so it will be in the knowledge that I, my daughters and granddaughters have not reproduced too many of our kind.

I have no problem with dissenting opinion, but I'm annoyed by obtuse, obviously incorrect opinions, particularly coming from a person saying I'm wrong when they apparently don't understand what I'm even saying. I had discussions with people above, people I think brought up valid points. I've had an argument with you, because you've brought up points I think are either wrong or irrelevant and you've done so in an acerbic manner that's pissed me off.

Urban densities in the US and Canada can easily be shown to be similar. You're saying American and Canadian cities are designed differently. Fine! But it doesn't show through in the population density numbers, which suggests to me that those differences don't impact population density. Your argument, which is apparently that Canadian cities are less dense than American ones, doesn't hold up to the data. So what exactly are you still arguing about?

The fact that cities are closer together in America and that there are far more cars per kilometre of road does have significant impact on the cost of building road networks BETWEEN cities. Maybe it means a higher portion of Americans travel between cities by car, and maybe it means freight is cheaper in the US, I don't know. But I do know it's irrelevant to this conversation, which is about individual cities and their population densities.

And what does the following sentence even mean? "I'm not the first person in this page that you've tried convincing that Canada and US city planners have the exact parameters to work with."
Are you missing a word in there somewhere?

Hahaha in no part of my post was I rude, and the only reason you're jumping all over me is because of your inability to accept dissenting opinion. It's like everybody else has to back down if you're in the fray. And It's like you really really want others to buy that Canada and the US are similar in this respect.

I'm not the first person in this page that you've tried convincing that Canada and US city planners have the exact parameters to work with.

Having that many more cities of a certain population means that the considerations are different at a national level, and as well transportation needs, one city linking up to another and how we create our hubs. We're not just talking about having a few more, but by your own admission, 8 times more for cities above a million and 10 times more for cities above 100,000.

This means that it takes way less driving from one city before we arrive at another city in the US. There are way more sparse pockets of completely unused, untouched and sometimes barren land in Canada and these pockets are larger. This is what makes a huge difference to planners.

You can go on telling yourself that there is no difference in urban planning considerations between two countries of very similar land mass and one with 10% the population of the other. Nobody else agrees with you. Let's leave it at that.

You're rude and you don't know what you're talking about. I also don't know who this "we" you're talking about is because I only see you engaging in this pointless argument which you seem ill-equipped to take part in.

Look into the numbers. Look into the population densities of various cities. You'll see that Canadian and US cities of similar sizes have overlapping densities. Your claim that "individual density of [American] cities... are of a different scale" is absolutely incorrect. Some Canadian cities (like Edmonton) are less dense than similar American ones, some (like Vancouver) are more dense, but in general they are very comparable.

You seem to be mistaken about how a larger population gets distributed in a country. The US has 10 times as many people as Canada. That does not mean its cities are 10 times bigger or 10 times denser, it means it has 10 times more cities of various sizes than Canada does. Canada has 6 areas with more than a million people, the US has 51. Canada has 35 areas with more than 100,000 people, the US has 342. Note, the numbers roughly scale up by 10. Although approximately one order of magnitude more numerous in the US, the cities themselves have similar population densities between the two countries. There is a far greater difference within regions of each country (Chicago compared to Denver, for example) than between similar areas of the other country (Denver compared to Calgary, for example).

Yes, both US and Canada population are spread between 80% urban and 20% rural. We get that.

What we've been trying to tell you is that contrary to your belief that overall density of the whole country doesn't affect density of localized areas, it does. Our population being 10 times that of yours, mean that the individual density of our cities and rural areas are of a different scale than yours. That would affect the cost of transportations, services, such and such.

Yes the existence of urban sprawl in USA and Canada are fairly consistent and in that way, we're both different from the way cities in Europe and Asia are planned and built, because we are way more spacious and have a lot of land (thank the Lord), but the individual density of each of our sprawled cities are different. You can take a look at the population of your cities in the link that I provided you earlier. And have a look at the population size of our cities and you will know what I'm talking about finally.

The stat you're looking for is that 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the border.

I don't understand what you're trying to say in your last paragraph.

This chart is highlighting URBAN population densities of various countries. Although not given, and although overall density is vastly different, I suspect that on this measure US and Canadian cities would be quite similar - in my opinion both tend to be sprawling and car dependent in comparison to Europe or Asian cities. There are exceptions of course, with New York being the biggest one.

My reason for thinking this is both anecdotal and the fact that both the US and Canada populations are about 80% urban, 20% rural, with urban being cities, villages and suburbs. Although the US is obviously much bigger, the general layout of cities and towns is similar in the two places, and a similar portion of the population live in those cities an towns.

I have started seeing some of that; and noticed that garments was on the list of leading exports. Just wasn't sure how advanced the trend is, especially since there are quite a few people to clothe there too.
`
Did here about the Dhaka fire, very sad.
`
Aside from garments/textiles, what other manufacturing opportunities are there for Bangladesh in your opinion?

But is Urban Area the same thing everywhere ? In France it's built areas without interruption and with more than 1500 jobs. So it's a bit undervalued. All tiny villages - and there is a lot here - are not accounted.

Unfortunately, survival of the fittest hasn't worked very well in context of the human species. The population of the world has now crossed 7 billions now.It's an exponential chart with no indications of slowing down.

The problem is that despite poorly exploiting the resources around us, destroying the environment etc. we still are able to manipulate our living environment and multiply faster still.

But I do believe that eventually it will be the Four Horsemen thing when our Ozone layer gets destroyed or maybe the land for food runs out or something else.

Even the US naval base located in its Yishun town doesn't count. The USA has bases worldwide in every corner of the globe, even in countries like the UAE, UK, Italy, Oman, Kyrgyzstan and Bulgaria.

You can consider it a form of land leasing. Nothing was given for free.

You still haven't answered me how much the US donates to Singapore (zero) and how it's American business to improve the hard lives of people living there, or anywhere else on the globe for that matter, short of suspected weapons of mass destruction (lol) or political ideology.

How exactly has the US been making the business of other pseudo capitalist states with no land and natural resources but with a functional financial system its own business, and donating its resources to them? Please answer, thanks.

Its good that now you've clarified that connectivity wasn't what you were talking about, but it was what I was talking about.

No city, township, principality or village exists as a silo. Connectivity plays a part in the cost of bringing imports, goods and services to any place, other than running a police department. This should be a no-brainer. It's the obvious reason why cost of living in Alaska is high. The population density of Alaska isn't lower than some states in the contiguous US, there are wide stretches of completely uninhabited land in the Mountain West states (Montana, Wyoming, Idaho) and upper Midwest (North Dakota) and it costs much less to live there than in ANY part of Alaska.

If you have fewer cities nationally, it means it takes a long distance than average when you travel out of one Canadian city with pop above 100,000 before you hit another one compared to the United States. Economy of scale is not in your favor, this is why your government tells you to build your cities close together, and not merely just pack enough people in each city to achieve minimum density.

You overestimate the extent of benefits foreign territories and (foreign citizens like yourself) may extract from any form of usefulness to the US by so many hundred times.

Let me just sum it up in a nutshell to you. However the people there toil under the description as written above due to its lack of land, US interest in the Straits of Malacca (check spelling) is not about to change a thing for them. Land isn't going to increase, revenue from the US isn't going to be donated to any foreign state.

All powers and principalities under the sovereign control of the United States go towards the interests of the United States. Thank you.

Wannabe Las Vegas, Dubai will dry up 99 years before Las Vegas ever does. Why? Because the whole of the UAE has a water problem. Already their water source comes from desalination, they pump all the salt back into the gulf, that body of water is the world's most polluted and is incapable of supporting scarcely any form of life in it.

Nobody had any problems understanding what you said. Just because they don't acquiescence to your dogged insistence that USA has the same issues as your country doesn't make their opinion "obtuse and incorrect". By the way, do you even know what an opinion is, that you have the gall to use the adjective 'incorrect' on one?

Glad that you finally saw the light. By your own admission (finally after much belaboring on the part on other netizens), your quote "The fact that cities are closer together in America and that there are far more cars per kilometre of road does have significant impact on the cost of building road networks BETWEEN cities. Maybe it means a higher portion of Americans travel between cities by car, and maybe it means freight is cheaper in the US, I don't know. But I do know it's irrelevant to this conversation, which is about individual cities and their population densities."

The connectivity of our cities is directly related to the density nationally and this directly influences the costs of transportation and services to cities and urban sprawl. The costs of bringing services to cities WAS the point that you raised right at the start! Its not determined ONLY due to urbal sprawl, its what people tried to tell you over and over and you couldn't get.

Let's track back. Mar 4th, 22:35 Central Time USA, you said:
"Might be, although I think there is an optimum urban density. Too low and you end up like the US and Canada - urban sprawl making it more expensive for a city to provide services to its population and an unhealthy reliance on cars.Too high and you feel like you're living in Blade Runner or something."

Let me repeat. The cost of provision of services to cities is also determined by the connectivity of the cities, besides just its urban sprawl. Later, when corrected, you kept on harping on the density of the individual cities all through, while others tried to tell you over and over and you refused to listen. So now you finally got it! That's great.

The large number of cities and lower pockets of unused, uninhabited and sometimes barren land in the US (caused by a higher national population density) means that the US does not have the same problems of high costs of bringing services to our cities and towns compared to your country, Australia and Russia, with really low national density. In fact, I'm not the first netizen in this conversation who tried to tell you this and cited those countries before.

Glad you finally understood the memo, just don't say it wasn't given out sooner.